Time to be radical

There is no denying that the policy known as the "Right to Buy" introduced by the Thatcher/Joseph government was a political masterstroke. In one swoop it changed the world for a generation of people and their inheritors. I am not about to debate the rights & wrongs of the policy (mostly wrong of course, in the short and long term) in this blog. I merely want to use it as an illustration of a systemic change that one government put in that all future governments would find it difficult if not impossible to undo.

Under the British 'constitution', no government (at any level) can bind the policies of a future one. In other words any budget can be deleted, any structure restructured, laws can be repealed and even rights removed by a successive administration. But, the really, really clever and radical politicians can prevent this, for good or for bad. These are the systemic changes.

Another example is the Minimum Wage brought in by Blair's government. It would be nigh on impossible to undo that now. (Although it can be enforced with greater or lesser degrees of attention.) I would put the Open University into this category. Also of course, the EU Referendum was a systemic game changer too.

Some systemic changes are so by dint of legal intricacy (unravelling a law might be extremely difficult), or by dint of political zeitgeist (it would be generally seen to be unthinkable to undo the change). And some change the rules altogether such as the Human Rights Act (underpinned by the ECHR) and electoral reform (such as the voting systems put in place for the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments etc - but not yet Westminster). Still more revolve around creating an uplift in the skills and understanding of the population so that they won't (for example) have any truck with fake news or daft pseudo-science.

I hope that when the next Labour govt is elected (and that cannot come soon enough) that great effort is put into establishing positive systemic changes that will provide resilient improvements for the many, not just the few, in the UK and the world. Yes of course, it will be important to undo the years of damage inflicted on the economy and society by the years of Tory rule. But let's be really clever about it and do all that can be done systemically to prevent damage in the future - no matter which party is in control.

Tackling Anti-Semitism - an Organisational Development (OD) perspective

I have worked as an OD adviser for over 30 years. My assignments have been mainly in the public services, especially police, local government and the NHS. All this while (and longer) I have been a member of the Labour Party. Like many, I know, I have watched the debate around Anti-Semitism (AS) in the Labour Party and beyond with growing degrees of distress and concern. It seems that opinions are now more bitterly divided and sides drawn than even the arguments over Brexit.

But rather than get embroiled in the political arguments about where to go forward from here, I wanted to write this blog from an OD perspective. It is also an attempt to find some common ground.  

There is of course a huge debate about the scale of the problem within the Party, one which I plan to sidestep in this blog. All I would say about this is that I await the results of the independent and evidence based investigation being conducted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, with keen interest. I have stated that I will accept their conclusions and recommendations without equivocation. And I do this partly because I have faith in the EHRC's independence and partly, in order to move forward, I believe we must have faith in their independence and ability to help the party address this issue. And I say the latter from an OD perspective: all OD interventions need some sort of baseline to push against and from which to move forward.

(In this regard, I am very concerned that there appears to briefing against the EHRC investigation from several quarters because it will take too long or the Commission is inherently biased etc. This is most unwise in my opinion as without an up front agreement to accept the EHRC's process, there will never be any common ground and the Party will remain in a perennial self destructive battle with itself)

So with regard to the scale of the problem, for the purposes of this blog, I would ask all readers to accept that it is quite big enough to require a significant OD intervention to resolve it. (And comparisons to other political parties and wider society don't help or really matter. I think, the Labour Party should always be a trailblazer when it comes to matters of human rights, justice and equalities)

We have a problem that needs fixing. For the primary and intrinsic sake of the Jewish people who feel discriminated against and abused (within and outside the Party), we all need to sort this. And we need to resolve this as there is risk that this matter could damage the party politically, below the water line. And for anyone who wants and needs a Labour Government to be elected, this matter must absolutely be resolved. 

From my OD view, I think we need several principles established to ensure a robust fix. Anything less than these will result in the problem continuing which is in nobody's interests. 

The principles of effective OD practice as applied to this matter:

1) Whatever happens from here onward, must be evidence based. 

This applies to any interventions designed to tackle AS: there must be some science behind the interventions selected (and by definition) not selected. Simply adopting what I call a 'blunderbus' approach OD - firing all manner of development initiatives at the organisation with little aim or conscious selection is not only pointless it is potentially highly damaging.

It will be highly damaging because resources and good will, will have been squandered leaving less effort to tackle the problem effectively.  

2) We need an objective baseline and scoping of the problem

At the heart of all effective OD practice is diagnosis. This must be done comprehensively and objectively. And looking at the issue over time is critical too. We need to look back to establish the roots of the issue. There are plenty of Party documents and recordings that can help to trace the history of this problem within the Party. Has it always been there? When did it appear to grow? What else was happening etc etc. This is why the EHRC intervention is so critical and must not be disparaged, in my view.

3) There must be consistency and there can be no hierarchy of discrimination and abuse

One of the shining achievements of the last Labour Government was the Equality Act 2010: 

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.

This has helped to establish the principle that all forms of discrimination should be treated with parity. It is not the case that homophobia (for example) is more or less important than racism which in turn is no more or less important than ageism ... and so on. It is widely accepted in all circles of people engaged with tackling discrimination, that hierarchies of abuse are in themselves abusive as a hierarchy places one form above another. This applies in this instance, whilst AS is currently the focus, it is no more or less important than other forms of racism or other forms of abuse.

The implication of this is that whatever arrangements put in place to tackle AS must also have complementary arrangements for all other forms of abuse & discrimination. 

4) Changing organisations (especially a democratic membership one) is complex. Really complex!

I remain concerned that there appear to a wide number of people who seem to be engaged in what I would contend is over-simplistic or even magical thinking about this matter. The notion that there are some simple solutions than can be applied that will sort all this out, is dangerous in my opinion. Why dangerous? Because such 'solutions' will not be effective and this will leave the problem broadly untouched (leading to yet more discrimination & abuse) and also, at the same time, contribute to a cynical and nihilistic view that the problem is intractable. And I don't believe that to be the case.

Whatever happens here on in, needs to include a careful grasping and cradling of the complexity of this issue. Megaphone social media is not the way to move things forward. For me that is a lesson for all commentators on this subject.

5) Leadership is an essential ingredient but alone it is not sufficient to make all the difference

In my time as an OD adviser, I have seen many organisations eat leaders for breakfast. The idea that the performance of an organisation or its culture is determined by one leader or even a small leadership team of people is quite simply crass. It is understandable belief arising from what might be called the 'mythical hero' idea of leadership. Leaders have a significant role in determining culture of course. However no one should expect that merely changing a leader or one or two members of the senior team will lead inevitably to a positive solution.

6) Changing "the way things are done around here" (aka organisational culture) is massive challenge to any body/organisation/group - the bigger and more disparate the group - the harder it is.

Or to cite another well known aphorism: leopards don't change their spots. Now imagine thousands of leopards... Hence the notion that suddenly in the last couple of years, the Labour Party has become 'institutionally racist or anti-Semitic' is, from an OD perspective, highly unlikely. The phrase 'institutionally racist' of course originates from Lord Scarman's 1981 report into the Brixton Riots. It was also cited in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, headed up by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. A full quote is worth reading:

[Lawrence Inquiry 6.7] In 1981 Lord Scarman's Report into The Brixton Disorders was presented to Parliament. In that seminal report Lord Scarman responded to the suggestion that "Britain is an institutionally racist society," in this way:- 
"If, by [institutionally racist] it is meant that it [Britain] is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject the allegation. If, however, the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration, and, where proved, swift remedy". (Para 2.22, p 11 - Scarman Report). 

There is of course extensive exploration and discussion in both reports about 'institutional racism'. As an OD adviser, I would never use such a term lightly and certainly without extensive investigation. It is certainly possible that the ECHR investigation will conclude that the Party is 'institutionally anti-Semitic' but that would be after careful consideration of evidence and advice from many sources. To bandy the term around in the absence of such due consideration is, at the very least, unhelpful and at most highly destructive of any attempts to rid the Party of all smidgens of discrimination (which must always be the constant aim). Using the term of institutional racism in cavalier fashion debases and devalues it. And that is in no one's interest.

  7) It isn't all culture - it really is about strategy in the end

In the end all political parties exist to enact policies that each contend will provide the optimum improvement in the lives of all the citizens being governed. There has so far been relatively little focus on whether any of Labour's policies, were it to be in power, would be intrinsically anti-Semitic. An OD perspective always starts with what the organisation is seeking to achieve, for itself and the wider world.

So in terms of this matter, the crucial question in going forward, what more is the Labour party planning to do, once in power, to tackle not only AS in all of its forms throughout society but all forms of abuse and discrimination. Perhaps there are rules, regulations and advisory guidelines which could be established not only for all political parties but all organisations, commercial, public and otherwise...? What more should it be doing?

This is, of course, notwithstanding the need to examine what more the Party needs to do as an employer, as a beacon of good ethics and as a thought leader to engender anti-discriminatory practice everywhere.

All future OD interventions, including changes to HR and other procedures, leadership development, policy making structures, social media advice, memberships rules & regulations etc etc. must start with strategy and work forward from there.


In conclusion, this is a matter that is not going to go away easily or swiftly. All of us can engage in shoulda, woulda, coulda debates about what has happened and how we should not be here. But here we are and we simply have to find a broadly consensual way forward.

Ten reasons why I am a Labour Party activist

As we are in the midst of a UK election, where it seems Labour may not poll as high as I would hope I have been left reflecting deeply on why I remain an active Labour Party member and supporter.

So here are my ten foundations for why, after 40+ years, I have been and will carry on being a Labour activist until my ashes wash out into Cardigan Bay:

1) My parents were both Liberal teachers and I heard them tell stories about the students they taught who were experiencing hardship of various kinds. My early childhood was spent in dusty haystacks In north Devon, small friendly schools and on Welsh beaches in the summer holidays. I was lucky. So it did not seem right to me that there were others who were far less fortunate than me. I wanted to change this from an early age.

2) I now cannot remember why, but at secondary school, I became involved in supporting Oxfam. I went away on youth weekends and met charismatic people who educated me about the vast divisions in wealth and opportunity in the world, both between and within nations. I became angry at this huge injustice and informed myself by reading numerous articles in the New Internationalist magazine. I began to consolidate my political opinions. I remember helping to get out the vote late into the evening for Frank Judd in Paulsgrove in February 1974, just a few days before my 16th birthday.

3) At university, I became an activist: a pragmatic socialist that helped to organise a 'Progressive Alliance' of International Socialist, Labour, Liberal & Ecology party members into a combined force that wrangled control of the Student's Union out of the hands of the Federation of Conservative Students (from whom I first heard the abusive label of 'pleb'). While still at university, after the 1979 general election, I joined the Labour Party. I was prompted to do so out of fear of what was to come from a Tory government. (And I was right to be fearful)

4) I was involved in many political activities then around gay liberation, amnesty international, men's health, Anti Nazi League / Rock Against Racism, National Council for Civil Liberties, supporting the Miners etc. Even though many of these were apolitical, with a big P, there were never any Tories involved then. I remember that in these days when (at last) social liberalism has been adopted by the Tories.

5) My first few jobs (unemployment benefit office, council housing department, learning disability planning, health promotion services) served to consolidate my belief in the importance solid public services. Along with my appreciation of education (remember 1 above), I learnt that public services are not merely a 'safety net' for those who are less fortunate. Public services are the glue that holds our whole country together and creates the essential conditions for enterprise and commercial growth. Publicly funded & commercially developed organisations are two sides of the same coin, the same economy, the same society... People need the wherewithal to imagine and fulfil their ambitions: public services provide much of that through education, infrastructure, community safety, healthcare, national security and so forth.

6)  I well remember the bleak years between 1979 and 1997 with rampant militarism, legalised homophobia, political corruption and harsh treatment of anyone or any group that wasn't 'one of us'. Ours was a grey and dismal country when public services and capital investment was stripped to the bone as the government revelled in selling off the 'family silver'. The housing crisis began and continues to this day. This is when I fully began to appreciate that Tories only seem to want to know the price of everything while the value is of far lesser concern. The accountants had taken over the asylum. Self interest ('greed is good') was in the ascendant.

7) 1997 was a turning point and the sun shone again. The Labour government made real progress on many matters such as SureStart, social exclusion, community policing, human rights and decent investment in schools and hospitals. The economy grew steadily and this all seemed like practical democratic socialism in working practice. For ten years, the engines of commercial business and public services hummed along well: a fact that appears to be have been forgotten after the 2007 worldwide financial crash. Suddenly the national debt and deficit became Labour's fault, even though they were not and indeed had been far higher in previous decades.

8) However lurking behind the Oz curtains, were some of the same old same old: inequalities, militarism, privatisation, corruption and pandering to big business interests. At times like this, my pragmatic socialism comes to the fore and I remain with the party with which there is always hope of better times to come (whereas with the Tories, there is never any hope...)

9) The harsh & cruel reality of 9 years of Tory led government has only bolstered my resolve: only the Labour Party can really offer hope to the many people. For me socialism is about creating the conditions in which people can find the resources to shape their dreams and achieve these ambitions for themselves and their families. Tories like to pretend they are party of aspiration for the many but in truth, they are the party of aspiration only for the few who are lucky enough to have the resources.

10) In my head, I have a poem by Roger McGough: There are fascists pretending to be libertarians like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians. Now I am not saying that any party to the right (or left) of the Labour Party are fascists - by no means! But I think there are many politicians who pretend and fake a concern for social development and the interests of the ordinary working person but who actually have other aims really in mind. Only the Labour Party has the organisation, the principles, the policies, the reach and the experience to deliver a country that is fair, creative, ambitious, peaceful and prosperous for the many (not just the few).